National security 'more important' than privacy

Jamie McKane

MyBroadband Journalist
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
7,000
Reaction score
1,008
South Africans agree with a majority of global citizens that personal privacy should take second place to national security, an international survey has shown.

According to a global survey of 24 143 people commissioned by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (Cigi), 70% agreed that law enforcement authorities should have the right to access online communications of citizens, with that number climbing to 85% where a person is suspected of a crime.

The survey was conducted by research firm Ipsos and comes as tech giant Apple is battling the FBI over data access to an iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooters who killed 14 people.

“The findings in this survey shine an important light on the nexus between trust, national security, and privacy in the increasingly dark and ungoverned space of the internet,” said Fen Hampson, director of Cigi’s Global Security and Politics Programme and co-director of the Global Commission on Internet Governance.

A US judge on Monday ruled that the US government cannot force Apple to unlock the iPhone, though the FBI has said it would appeal.

Encryption technologies

Apple has received support for its position from Facebook, Google and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The survey found that 63% of internet users feel that companies should not develop technologies that prevent authorities from accessing user online content.

African citizens of Nigeria and Tunisia were most likely (95% and 93% respectively) to agree with the position that if someone is suspected of a crime, law enforcement should be able to access data on who they are communicating with. People in South Korea (67%) and Japan (70%) were the most likely to disagree with that position.

Encryption technologies have emerged as a way to prevent unauthorised access of personal data.

On the question of whether companies should actively develop technology to block law enforcement from access to personal data, people in China and India (74%) were most likely to agree, while those in South Korea (46%) were least likely to agree.

“Public attention today is focused on national security and digital privacy. When it comes to national security, Americans and Canadians, as well as global citizens from 24 countries, believe that digital privacy considerations come secondary to their own government’s pursuit of keeping their home country safe,” said Darrell Bricker, chief executive of Ipsos Public Affairs.

In addition to SA, the survey was carried out in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, the UK, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, South Korea, Sweden, Tunisia, Turkey and the US.

Fin24
 
Well, I encrypt my computer drives, so that if my desktop PC or laptop is stolen, they can't use the data for identity theft purposes.
 
I have an issue with governments intercepting communications without a warrant. That is an invasion of privacy. With a warrant it is no different than a court ordering a blood test to determine whether someone has committed a crime or not.
 
The only time they should have access is when they have enough evidence to get a search warrant. The requirements should be strict and the authorities always assumed to be attempting a fishing expedition unless they can prove otherwise.

National security is a chimera dangled in front of the gullible to con them into giving up hard-won freedoms. Sadly too many people fall for it.

Americans and Canadians, as well as global citizens from 24 countries, believe that digital privacy considerations come secondary to their own government’s pursuit of keeping their home country safe
So much for land of the free and home of the brave.
 
I have an issue with governments intercepting communications without a warrant. That is an invasion of privacy. With a warrant it is no different than a court ordering a blood test to determine whether someone has committed a crime or not.

This goes to the heart of the matter. The NSA's PRIM program shows how mass surveillance can be abused. While I can understand why they'd want to do it, it was inexcusable. This has cost the world dearly, bringing us right to this topic. There should be checks and balances. Also not politicizing and corrupting of these processes.

The bottom line of the communications environment we are moving in: An environment of neurotic users (with good reason), led by business profiteering from it (VPN providers, registrars and proxy providers, offshore hosting in bullet proof environments, privatized email headers etc), also bad actors fanning the flames. What a perfect setup for targeting innocent users by criminals. But then again it does happen already? Yes it does.

From a local perspective, RICA, FICA. How has this helped us? About 0.0000009%. Cost us? A fortune. Current events shows how easy it is. Then we have to ask the question why the FPB now wants to monitor our communications?

The danger here is not bypassing privacy for real legal and security issues of national concern, but abusing these processes for political purposes of political concern. Sometimes there is much confusion between these two in parliament as it stands. Once again refer to current events.
 
The people who said yes to the survey are not clued up on the issues surrounding privacy on the internet at all. They're just as bad as the people who make up laws that allow them to flout the ones that protect privacy.
 
I have an issue with governments intercepting communications without a warrant. That is an invasion of privacy. With a warrant it is no different than a court ordering a blood test to determine whether someone has committed a crime or not.

I agree 100%. A lawful and warranted interception of communications of someone where evidence shows this person to either have committed or is committing a crime is perfectly fine. Letting the government have unbridled access to all your electronic communications at their whim is no better than having them install remotely operated cameras inside your own home.

I wonder how many people would object to that under the guise of 'National Security'.

Freedom isn't easy which is why governments want to do this. They couldn't be bothered to do things the 'hard' way in order to protect our freedoms and get the bad guy at the same time.
 
I agree 100%. A lawful and warranted interception of communications of someone where evidence shows this person to either have committed or is committing a crime is perfectly fine. Letting the government have unbridled access to all your electronic communications at their whim is no better than having them install remotely operated cameras inside your own home.

I wonder how many people would object to that under the guise of 'National Security'.

Freedom isn't easy which is why governments want to do this. They couldn't be bothered to do things the 'hard' way in order to protect our freedoms and get the bad guy at the same time.

Well then there is the counter argument, in that if you actually know anything about security, you shouldn't trust anyone else with the your information. Apple is all righteous atm about their "privacy" but they have more dirt on their users than any government could ever wish for.

It is very simple, if you don't want people spying on you via the internet, then don't use services which can identify you.
 
The majority are morons i.e. have no idea that breaking security won't achieve anything except the loss of personal privacy. Radical groups will be one of the first to use other secure mechanisms; ones that are not controlled by ignorant governments or morons.
 
It is very simple, if you don't want people spying on you via the internet, then don't use services which can identify you.
The logical conclusion of that is to go hide in a cave somewhere, and never come out, because if you're anywhere they can identify you and spy on you.
 
The logical conclusion of that is to go hide in a cave somewhere, and never come out, because if you're anywhere they can identify you and spy on you.
Or you just be methodical about the way you treat your personal information.
 
Or you just be methodical about the way you treat your personal information.

The sad reality is that to just live from day to day, you have to provide personal information to businesses and government that have no respect for it. Every tried entering a secure private company premises, a company you have never dealt with before, and you have to provide your ID, they scan your registration and they provide you with your name, address etc?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X