You Can’t Have Consent Of The Governed Without Privacy

There are still people questioning why we need privacy in the first place, considering it to be some kind of first-world superficial luxury at the individual level. But privacy is not an individual privilege, it is a fundamental collective right, and for very good reasons: without privacy, every other check and balance in society falls apart.

As the full scale of warrantless bulk surveillance unravels, some people are questioning why we need privacy anyway. It’s a good question, one that must have a good answer. Fortunately, it has.

Most people tend to see privacy as an individual luxury, rather than a collective benefit. But it goes far, far beyond being an individual luxury or an individual privilege: it is foundational to the concept of democracy.

Let’s look at the concept of consent of the governed for a minute. It is essentially the opposite of taxation without representation, which caused the British colonies to revolt once and form the United States of America. What it means is that you agree – in some shape or form – to the style of government setting rules for your everyday life, and the people in that government.

Consent of the governed can take many forms. One of the most common would be public, free, and fair elections. This assumes, of course, that people have the right to consent or dissent freely.

“Only 52 citizens failed the elections by giving the wrong answer on the ballot.” — Presidente’s aide in the game Tropico 5

Did you note that “consent or dissent freely” part? Guess what surveillance does?

People involved with today’s real-time surveillance have described it as “basically being able to see thoughts form in real-time in the monitored people”. It used to be that surveillance only monitored conversations, the exchange of ideas. With surveillance of the Internet, and thereby of searches, information lookups, cross-references, and drafts, governments are now able to monitor the formation of ideas – far before they’re communicated, if they ever are.

I cannot overstate what a game-changer this is. It enables governments to hold citizens accountable for dissent – actually, even for considering dissent, without communicating it to anybody.

It doesn’t need to accountability by force; far more subtle mechanisms are available. You may lose that promotion in the public sector. Never get that job for the government. Or have your lease terminated on public housing. Then again, even that is visible: the worst would be a suspicion that something like that might happen. The ghosts in the mind; the unseen fears. Once those have taken hold – and they do! – then consent of the governed is a fantasy, a delusion.

That’s why there can’t be surveillance at the idea-formation level; at the Internet level we have today. If there is, there is no consent of the governed – there can’t be. And by extension, there is no democracy, and therefore a society which will most likely end in a rather nasty upheaval.

Privacy remains your own responsibility.