Phil Zimmerman, author of PGP encryption software, recently stated in a couple interviews (#1, #2) that Moore's Law (the observation that computing power doubles every 18 months while halving in costs) runs a serious risk to people's privacy, especially the way we are carrying on today. It's an interesting hypothesis, one that can be applied to other regions of current human development.
"The human population does not double every 18 months, but its ability to use computers to keep track of us does," Zimmerman said, referring to what he sees as the threat to privacy from the increased use of high-tech surveillance cameras. "You can't encrypt your face."
We are all aware (or should be) that the world is increasingly digitized. Everything we do exists in a computer. All the information that defines us as a citizen is in a computer. Economic information, health information, demographics, personal communication. The last is often ignored or unrealized, but we communicate online via open letters. Email is naked, akin to sending a letter without an envelope where the Post Office makes a copy of it at every transit point, from pick-up to delivery. PGP is an application that allows you to put an envelope on your communications so that people aren't able to read it, either now or later.
For the most part, due to the immense amount of data being carried over our networks and the weak ability to sift through this data, most of us are protected via obscurity. The biggest danger today is only if someone slices through our anonymity and begins to target you. If that happens, its very easy for them to read everything you send (and in many cases to access your computer directly. Secure those WEP networks!). And consider the zealousness of the current law adminstration in the US, it doesn't take much to garner unwanted attention. (Bruce Schneier at Counterpane has an excellent analysis on how a national criminal registry database will undoubtedly snare many more innocent people than criminals.)
But even for those of us basking in security through obscurity, Moore's Law is working against us. The geometric acceleration of computing power (both in terms of hardware and software) dictate that it is only a matter of time until everything that is digitized is easily accessible. So even though we can escape undue (or minimally unwanted) attention and harassment now, it won't be the case in the near future. And it isn't just email. RFID tags in your clothing, face scanners, fingerprint readers on elevator buttons... it's coming.
What can we do about it? We need to first recognize the potential dangers. We need to adopt an attitude that places first and foremost a consideration of even though we CAN do it, does that mean we SHOULD do it? And once we do something, we need to consider fully what the implications of the advanced technology are, and be wary to ensure that important legal, social, and political obstacles are created to prevent abuse.
As fun and easy as it is to get all hostile towards governments and craft intricate conspiracy theories, I think that modern governments are, in general, well-intentioned. The problems stem from the inevitable development of a sense of superiority of ideology, as if being the power-holders automatically imbues one with wisdom and an inability to be wrong. The government is also self-interested, something that will never be abolished and thus we just have to learn to live with it. So when we take a powerful, self-interested body that believes it knows what is best for the people (and itself), we run serious risks of well-intentioned efforts having disasterous consequences. For this reason, we need to take care to establish strong, robust privacy laws.
But even more than laws, we need to cultivate a national sense of the importance of privacy and transparency in government. We need to keep the government beholden to the people (of, by, and for, remember?). When people lose faith in that, they wilt, and concede powers that they need not. They begin to believe the government when it says that it knows what they want, even though what the government is advocating doesn't really seem to be what they want. It is easy for a powerful body politic to convince people that privacy is a weakness and transparency is insecure, but that is an illusion. Just as our current security through obscurity is a weakness, so is the opacity of the government.
Posted by Nutrimentia at June 8, 2003 11:49 AM | TrackBack