Skribenten Bruce Schneier skrev for en tid tilbake et flott forsvar for privatlivets rett i magasinet Wired. Artikkelen er så pass viktig at jeg vil referere noen utdrag her. Noe er direkte sitert. Noe er oversatt og noe er mine egne tanker.
The most common retort against privacy advocates -- by those in favor of ID checks, cameras, databases, data mining and other wholesale surveillance measures -- is this line: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"
Some clever answers:"If I'm not doing anything wrong, then you have no cause to watch me.","Because the government gets to define what's wrong, and they keep changing the definition.""Because you might do something wrong with my information."
My problem with quips like these -- as right as they are -- is that they accept the premise that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It's not. Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining the human condition with dignity and respect.
Two proverbs say it best: Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? ("Who watches the watchers?") and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Han fortsetter med å sitere kardinal Richelieu som sa: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Overvåk et gjennomsnittsmenneske lenge nok og du vil finne en grunn til å arrestere, eller bruke informasjonen til utpressing.
Privatliv beskytter oss mot overgrep fra makthaverne, selv om vi ikke gjør noe galt i mens vi overvåkes. Vi gjør ikke noe galt når vi har sex eller går på do. Vi skjuler ikke noe selv om vi søker plasser for å reflektere eller konversere. Vi skriver dagbøker og personlige journaler, vi synger i dusjen, og skriver brev til hemmelige elskere for så å brenne dem etterpå. Privatliv er et grunnleggende menneskelig behov og en grunnleggende menneskelig rett.
For if we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.
Frykten for å bli overvåket gjør at vi endrer vår naturlige oppførsel. Vi sier ikke høyt alt det vi ellers ville sagt. Vi skriver ikke alt vi ellers ville skrevet. Kanskje emnet var politikk, terrorisme eller Islam. Vi stopper opp i frykt for at våre ord kan bli tatt ut av sin sammenheng og brukes mot oss... så ler vi av vår egen paranoia og fortsetter. Men ordene endres litt. Vi er litt mer forsiktige. Dette ødelegger et demokrati og kveler vår ytringsfrihet.
Too many wrongly characterize the debate as "security versus privacy." The real choice is liberty versus control. Tyranny, whether it arises under threat of foreign physical attack or under constant domestic authoritative scrutiny, is still tyranny. Liberty requires security without intrusion, security plus privacy. Widespread police surveillance is the very definition of a police state. And that's why we should champion privacy even when we have nothing to hide.
