Dude, what happened to my privacy?

IN PERSPECTIVE

The concept of individual privacy is often questioned and deliberated upon in the current technologically advanced and internet-reliant world. The use of the internet in everyday life is almost inescapable these days. From watching a movie to booking a cab, from exercising to enjoying a meal, from personal security to enjoying bedtime, the internet is in every activity and all of us log on to it, increasingly through mobile phones, which provide cheap and easy access.

Thanks to our ‘smart’ devices and complex algorithms, the choices presented to us for any of the above actions are already influenced and also recorded by our likes, searches, location, spending habits, and any other data we may have given. Moreover, the ease of auto-complete or auto-correct suggestions, continuously record the choices we make on a daily basis. Any act of choice on the internet is being observed, if not influenced. There can be little doubt that we cannot enjoy complete privacy. The question is, how much privacy are we willing to give up? As technology grows, with each passing day, there is further intrusion into individual privacy.

Initially, we had cameras in public places for surveillance. So each time you stepped out of your house and into a public place, your privacy was compromised. This was justified as a trade-off for the larger good i.e., the safety of everyone in society outweighs the compromise of individual privacy. Hence we needed to have cameras in public places.

While surveillance in public seemed reasonable, the same “larger good” logic is now being weaponised to monitor the data in our phones. Apple, sometime in 2018, discussed introducing a feature that could check the photos sent on iMessage on the phone of any user to prevent the sexual abuse and exploitation of children. While child abuse should be prohibited and abusers should be punished, the fact that a private company could legally and willingly admit openly and proudly that they now have the technology to scan the photos in your phone is a scary thought.

Until now at least, we knew we were being watched. However, with the rampant presence of virtual assistant devices, our privacy becomes non-existent as soon as we buy/use them. For no conversation around such a device goes unrecorded. In 2018, a court in New Hampshire, during a murder trial, ordered Amazon to produce audio recorded in its smart speaker. Though not stated explicitly, the underlying principle is that for the larger good -- the safety of society -- it is important that alleged criminals are tried, though the trial may require comprising what is being spoken within the boundaries of one’s home. Alexa, as it is commonly called, is a virtual assistant for your home and is capable of recording all conversations within its surroundings.

It may seem that the surveillance of our audio communications inside our homes would be the line that we draw where this invasion ends. However, there is more. The final frontier of privacy, our most sacred space -- our sleep -- is no longer private, either.

With technology such as Google Nest, another virtual assistant, a bedside device collects data on an individual’s sleep pattern, including the period of sleep, patterns of waking up at night, snoring, and cough count. With this technology, even when an individual is sleeping, a private company somewhere knows the person’s precise sleep pattern and if the person is well or sick or in need of a particular thing such as pillows or blankets, or anxiety medicines. It is argued that this monitoring may help improve sleep patterns and perhaps the overall health of the individual that chooses this technology, but it does mean that the final frontier of individual privacy is under threat.

The need for surveillance is always wrapped up in the language of the “larger good” argument and the demonisation of those who speak against it. For example, when opposing voices were raised against allowing Amazon to present the audio recordings made by its device in the murder trial, they were termed “opponents of a safe society” and “supporters of crime”. While the demonisation of dissent is a pattern, it is important to ask ourselves, how much of a “larger good” is too good? Where do we draw the line for privacy when it keeps shifting away from us?

As of now, we really have no choice over sharing our data: refuse and you might not get any access to technology and you may also be labelled a misanthrope, an anarchist, a Luddite.

Our acquiescence is assumed, and that is where the problem lies. While we are losing the battle to safeguard our right to privacy, let us not let it become a lost cause already.

(Motwani is a lawyer;
Barucha is a writer)