The interoperability of different databases and the software used for data mining raises further issues. Interoperability allows analysis of multiple databases simultaneously and ensures the compatibility of various agencies’ data mining activities (Isles 2012, 292).This becomes problematic when matching and aggregating data across multiple record sets can create negative inferences about the individual drawn from otherwise innocent data (Solove 2011, 27). Examples of this can be seen in Edward Snowden’s revelation of the three-tiered hierarchy of the NSA foreign partnerships and the scope of information these international governments shared. The tier one nations are known as the Five Eyes, where there is an agreement made between the United
…show more content…
To Solove, this is the main problem with the nothing-to-hide argument, as by accepting this myth we allow those in power to control and manage the information we may want to legitimately hide. The nothing-to-hide argument focuses on the leaking of personal information and surveillance (Solove 2011, 29), ignoring legitimate privacy concerns. Bruce Schneier adds that privacy is an inherent human right and need, required to preserve humanity’s societal dignity. Without privacy, surveillance information is abused to access, spy, and sell private information (2008). Thus instead of the debate being based on security verses privacy, it is rather a debate based on liberty verses control as we lose our individuality when everything we do is observable and recordable. This is a system that is made by the individual, as the majority of data that is collected from us is given up voluntarily through the use of intimate devices such as cell phones, GPS, and personal computers (Schneier 2015, 4). We cooperate with both corporations and government surveillance systems in exchange for the convenience that these devices provide as well with the promises of protection and security. If the individual allows these constant violations of privacy then there is a risk of losing privacy altogether (Stone 2010, 60). This type of omnipresent mass surveillance can …show more content…
The idea that the benefits of convenience and security outweigh privacy underlines a common conception that privacy has an insignificant value (Solove 2011, 30). It is argued that those who identify with the nothing-to-hide argument undervalue privacy due to a lack of urgency compared with a “blood and death” potential. This distances privacy grievances from other conventional grievances (Bartow 2006, 62). According to Solove, those who identify with this argument, imagine privacy problems to represent a violent or deeply embarrassing type of harm, with the general consensus responding much more seriously to blood and death rather than to abstract problems (2011, 30). However, privacy is threatened by one single egregious and shocking act, but rather the right to privacy is being destroyed little by little through small acts committed by different actors that will accumulate and manifest over time. Glenn Greenwald argues that by voluntarily rendering yourself unthreatening to those in political power, you give in to the mass surveillance system that suppresses individual freedoms in a number of ways (2014). The erosion of privacy as a basic foundation of human rights can lead to gradual increases in security measures, until it becomes clearly obvious. Greenwald contests this narrow nothing-to-hide argument with Rose Luxemburg’s famous quote “He who
To Solove, this is the main problem with the nothing-to-hide argument, as by accepting this myth we allow those in power to control and manage the information we may want to legitimately hide. The nothing-to-hide argument focuses on the leaking of personal information and surveillance (Solove 2011, 29), ignoring legitimate privacy concerns. Bruce Schneier adds that privacy is an inherent human right and need, required to preserve humanity’s societal dignity. Without privacy, surveillance information is abused to access, spy, and sell private information (2008). Thus instead of the debate being based on security verses privacy, it is rather a debate based on liberty verses control as we lose our individuality when everything we do is observable and recordable. This is a system that is made by the individual, as the majority of data that is collected from us is given up voluntarily through the use of intimate devices such as cell phones, GPS, and personal computers (Schneier 2015, 4). We cooperate with both corporations and government surveillance systems in exchange for the convenience that these devices provide as well with the promises of protection and security. If the individual allows these constant violations of privacy then there is a risk of losing privacy altogether (Stone 2010, 60). This type of omnipresent mass surveillance can …show more content…
The idea that the benefits of convenience and security outweigh privacy underlines a common conception that privacy has an insignificant value (Solove 2011, 30). It is argued that those who identify with the nothing-to-hide argument undervalue privacy due to a lack of urgency compared with a “blood and death” potential. This distances privacy grievances from other conventional grievances (Bartow 2006, 62). According to Solove, those who identify with this argument, imagine privacy problems to represent a violent or deeply embarrassing type of harm, with the general consensus responding much more seriously to blood and death rather than to abstract problems (2011, 30). However, privacy is threatened by one single egregious and shocking act, but rather the right to privacy is being destroyed little by little through small acts committed by different actors that will accumulate and manifest over time. Glenn Greenwald argues that by voluntarily rendering yourself unthreatening to those in political power, you give in to the mass surveillance system that suppresses individual freedoms in a number of ways (2014). The erosion of privacy as a basic foundation of human rights can lead to gradual increases in security measures, until it becomes clearly obvious. Greenwald contests this narrow nothing-to-hide argument with Rose Luxemburg’s famous quote “He who