When law enforcement undermines our digital safety, who is looking after our interests?
Imagine your friend sent you a private DM on Twitter. Now imagine, instead of the content remaining for your eyes only, Twitter letting the police also take a peek at it.
Such intrusive practices of state actors accessing private messages have grave consequences for our lives. Some people can be physically harmed, and for some, it can mean that their families and friends could get prosecuted.
Despite this, the European Commission has recently established a new High-Level Group (HLG) tasked with giving national law enforcement representatives the space to discuss how the police can get their hands on more personal information and circumvent digital safety tools like encryption.
The focus falls particularly on the participation process which has been unequal and opaque as members of the HLG have invited several surveillance industry players to attend meetings while rejecting civil society’s expertise.
Whose (in)security?
In particular, security is seen as directly linked to the preservation of the state as an institution and its policies.
What’s more, law enforcement’s attempts to invade people’s personal spaces to seek information for their own political ends have created even more insecurity, pushing people into distrust in the political system.
A European poll shows that 80% of young people would not feel comfortable being politically active if authorities were able to monitor their digital communication.
Who benefits?
- But the industry’s goal is to cash in even though this creates more risks to people’s safety.
- The current global economy is defined by large tech platforms’ toxic, data-extractive business models.
- We are forced to be visible online. For tech companies to make more profit, they need to harvest more and more personal data to sell to the highest bidder.
- Research has shown that companies like Facebook, Google and Amazon have built their wealth on the back of our communities by subjecting us to the aggressive surveillance advertising industry.
- Based on their business model, this would only mean a decrease in their profits.
- However, the lack of such privacy protections has opened the door for law enforcement bodies to easily access our most private information.
While tech companies try to promote themselves as privacy-friendly and publicly align themselves with social justice struggles to build a positive image of their services, it’s all a charade that ends up backfiring at actual people.
You or your family could be next
A story from the US visualises how much of people’s civil rights are left up to the whims of online platforms like Facebook, owned by Meta.
In Nebraska, the police asked Facebook to provide information about the personal messages of a mother and a daughter to bring charges against them for seeking an abortion. Abortion can already be a traumatic and emotionally-heavy experience. Adding to that, criminal charges and intrusion into privacy could irreversibly affect people’s lives.
- Even though Facebook’s messaging app, Messenger, offers end-to-end encryption to ensure that people’s conversations are only visible to them and cannot be read by Facebook or the police, this privacy protection is not switched on by default.
Instead, they choose to prioritise their surveillance practices to continue to grow their profits, even if that means betraying the trust and rights of people.
Across the Atlantic, in Poland, we have seen another concerning story develop.
- Twitter revealed the personal conversations of Bart Staszewski, an LGBTI+ activist, based on politically motivated accusations of Polish right-wing government officials.
In September 2023, at an event on encryption, Bart shared that he does not trust Polish politicians, underlying that queer people have no rights in Poland. Speaking about his personal experience of being surveilled by the state, he emphasised that the right to privacy is essential for protecting oneself and the movement.
The consequences for Bart are losing his safe, digital space to exchange experiences and discuss personal and political matters.
It's time to fight back
As the stories above show, police bodies across the world have gone too far for all the wrong reasons.
Research and personal experiences evidently show that having safe digital spaces to discuss political ideas, organise for justice and explore personal interests empowers people to be socially active, connect with their community and form critical opinions.
When tech companies’ surveillance business practices facilitate law enforcement’s push for more access to data, movements are silenced and civic spaces for collective organising shrink.
It is crucial to ensure everyone's privacy given the grave consequences for the lives of many, especially those unduly targeted and criminalised by states like women, LGBTQI+ activists, and racial justice defenders.
That’s why we must fight back against all invasive data collection and privacy intrusion from companies and states.
- Legislators should ensure people are safe online by limiting law enforcement's access to personal data and challenging tech companies’ surveillance business model.
- Reaching alternative solutions is possible through equal participation and open discussion about how people's data is handled.
For these reasons, on Tuesday, we have to call on the members of the HLG to provide greater transparency and participation of all stakeholders in the process of discussing access to people’s data.
Viktoria Tomova is Communications and Media Officer at EDRi and a Public Voices Fellow on Technology in the Public Interest with The OpEd Project and MacArthur Foundation.
At Euronews, we believe all views matter. Contact us at view@euronews.com to send pitches or submissions and be part of the conversation.
No comments:
Post a Comment