From Big Data to Big Brother

How can we find the balance between national security interests and our right to privacy?

The recently revealed PRISM surveillance programme administered by the US National Security Agency has brought to the fore the dangers that systematic snooping of internet communications and the availability of big data has on our internet usage.

Following leaks last month by whistle-blower Edward Snowden, who for some time worked for the CIA, the whole technology world has experienced a gigantic storm of unprecedented proportions which has also been termed as “the most famous civil rights case of the century”, raising issues on the privacy of personal data, the methods by which security agencies collect and process information about their citizens and foreign nationals, and the role that big technology companies play in this game. The official American reaction was that such schemes were indeed necessary in light of national security and were an important tool in thwarting terrorist attacks and claiming that through PRISM the United States managed to uncover more than fifty potential terrorist events since 9/11. But at what cost to our privacy?

Whilst the international diplomatic intrigues keep getting increasingly complex and the asylum options for Snowden appear to be narrowing, many questions remain unanswered in relation to the extent of privacy breaches on common mortals as well as the extent of which other jurisdictions are also involved in similar undertakings.

News is constantly unfolding revealing that mass internet surveillance by states was not something limited to the other side of the Atlantic, where different laws apply. Le Monde recently published a story claiming that French security services were engaged in the interception of internet and telephone data on a vast scale, alleging that such activities were “outside the law, and beyond proper supervision”. Whilst initial concerns regarding the PRISM story circled around the disparity between applicable laws on both sides of the Atlantic, stemming from the fact that Europeans felt more confident with the level of protection afforded to them under European laws, it now appears that our European law comfort zone is not as idyllic as one thought it was. The situation becomes more absurd when one considers that France was one of the countries which vociferously criticized the United States following further revelations that the Americans were also snooping on official communications of the European institutions according to Der Spiegel.

Companies like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and Apple have published figures relating to the access requests received from US law enforcement agencies under the PRISM scheme but the EU has publicly raised its concerns over such processing of data and the breaches of data privacy rights applicable to EU citizens and has triggered various fears that these tech giants might be facing lawsuits in Europe after complying with the PRISM requests.

The position taken by EU Commissioner Reding (as well as several MEPs) is laudable. Reding has gone on record saying that privacy as a fundamental human right is “not negotiable” and that the latest information about PRISM should serve as a “wake-up call for us to advance our [EU] data protection reform”. In the meantime, a joint EU-US expert group will now investigate the alleged US spying on EU offices and report its findings in October.

A revision of European data protection laws is indeed now even more pertinent. Applicable privacy laws should not only be revisited in light of the changing technology that the world experienced during the past two decades but now also in light of the potential abuses that big data processing by national security agencies brings about.

Recently, a friend of mine asked me whether Google Maps is also part of the PRISM scheme. Whilst I could not directly answer his question in detail, his point was quite poignant yet simple. He told me that intrinsically, the first location you search for after installing Google Maps or Google earth was your house. Does this mean that Google have a system by which they tag the first search location of a user as “this is probably where the guy lives”? I doubt it. But the underlying lesson is clear. There is nowhere to hide on the internet and our written rules on privacy sometimes are not even worth the paper they are written on.

I am certain that there are yet even more secrets to be uncovered in this Snowden-PRISM story, much larger intrigues than what Wikileaks achieved in the past years. This is not just a question of national secrets but whether our personal data is safe and to what extent our online existence really is private.

The ability to easily process vast amounts of data, or big data, through the use of increasingly powerful technological news has raised the spectre of big brother to the highest levels ever.  How can we balance national security interests with the fundamental right to privacy? It appears that perhaps such fundamental right is not so fundamental after all.