You are right. But sometimes the data access technology does make a qualitative difference. That’s because a lot of our protection has always been a sort of “security by obscurity”. It wasn’t just the 4th amendment protecting you from unreasonable searches. The government was also restricted by their manpower, and by the fact that searching a house is easily visible and people would notice if you’re targeting everyone.
These restrictions don’t apply to digital eavesdropping, which is why it has become a major point of debate once the technology made it possible to do on a large scale.
Another example are license plate scanners: that data has always been there, and anyone could legally write down all the license plates they saw. But add image recognition and a database, and you’ve created a monster.
The tech community usually turns to technology to fight such technology: encryption for communication, Bitcoin to undermine (pun intended) what they see as the failings of the FED. BitTorrent for their qualms with copyright enforcement.
But laws and the court of public opinion are arguably our first line of defense. Underground printers didn’t stop the nazis or the Sowjets, and it’s not clear that technology has significantly moved power to the people in China, Turkey, or North Korea.
So we need better privacy laws. We need politicians to be scared before they use the services of Cambridge Analytica. And we need to convince our peers that they will have joined the dark side if they accept a job at Palantr. These sort of actions have the added benefit of respecting the processes of a civil society ruled by law, and not a techno-jungle where might is right.
These restrictions don’t apply to digital eavesdropping, which is why it has become a major point of debate once the technology made it possible to do on a large scale.
Another example are license plate scanners: that data has always been there, and anyone could legally write down all the license plates they saw. But add image recognition and a database, and you’ve created a monster.
The tech community usually turns to technology to fight such technology: encryption for communication, Bitcoin to undermine (pun intended) what they see as the failings of the FED. BitTorrent for their qualms with copyright enforcement.
But laws and the court of public opinion are arguably our first line of defense. Underground printers didn’t stop the nazis or the Sowjets, and it’s not clear that technology has significantly moved power to the people in China, Turkey, or North Korea.
So we need better privacy laws. We need politicians to be scared before they use the services of Cambridge Analytica. And we need to convince our peers that they will have joined the dark side if they accept a job at Palantr. These sort of actions have the added benefit of respecting the processes of a civil society ruled by law, and not a techno-jungle where might is right.