![]() We also had a comment from Rui, who argues (though perhaps with tongue-in-cheek?) that if we have nothing to hide then we should not be worried about giving up our privacy. Now, there are good reasons for people to be more concerned about governments carrying out this kind of activity than private businesses, but the position is quite nuanced and often it’s presented as a much more stark position than I think is the case, as if privacy is being destroyed or given up wholesale when it’s rather an accumulation of small compromises across the board. Also, the kind of ways that privacy is being compromised are ways that are quite common on the part of private businesses and are often treated as acceptable and not a cause for concern elsewhere. ![]() I guess my main answer would be that a lot of public security policy is insufficiently respectful of privacy, and there are other issues going on there such as insufficient oversight of the way in which the policy has been carried out. John Guelke, a research fellow at the University of Warwick whose research focuses on the ethics of surveillance. What I’m trying to say is that privacy comes in degrees, and the friction between privacy and security is solved properly only when we control how much privacy we are giving away for the sake of security…įor another perspective, we put the same question to Dr. I’m not too happy for social media to collect data about my browsing habits or the websites I visit for surveillance purposes, however. I’m giving away a little bit of my privacy there for the sake of security, and this is fine. Just to give you a practical example: I might be happy to give my date of birth when I check in my account over the phone to the operator because this facilitates the security practices on my bank account, so people who don’t know my bank account cannot access that information. So, one of the ways in which we can overcome this tension between privacy and security is to understand how much privacy we want to forgo or give away for the sake of security. So, privacy is something that cannot be denied to people because people have the right to privacy as human beings, but it’s not a right that comes in a binary form. Having said that, privacy is a fundamental right but it is not an absolute right. ![]() It is possible to guarantee security in such a way that privacy is not hindered or encroached on too much. Did she think there was a conflict between privacy and security? To get a response, we spoke to Dr. Mariarosaria Taddeo, Researcher Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute. But are there some assumptions baked into his comment? Are privacy and public security really in conflict with one another? And, if so, which is more important? What do our readers think? We had a comment from Andrej, who believes that safety should always trump privacy concerns. So, by that logic, people should be more than willing to sacrifice some privacy in order to help maintain security. People seem happy to give up some of their privacy in order to pay for online services such as email, social media, and internet search tools. There’s a growing awareness about the value of personal information, with The Economist recently arguing that the world’s most valuable commodity is now no longer oil, but data. Yet some of these measures have raised privacy concerns. ![]() In response, these companies have been keen to point out the measures they employ to make their services hostile environments for terrorists (such as artificial intelligence to identify objectionable content). Does privacy stand in the way of safety? In the wake of recent terror attacks, large tech firms like Facebook have been criticised for facilitating communication, radicalisation, and propaganda activities of terror groups online.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |