I wish people were not asking why data protection is important. I wish they weren't asking why it is a big deal to give governments and private companies widespread access to our personal data. Even more so, I wish people weren't asking me to justify my opposition to privacy invasions and especially my opposition to data sharing agreements with third countries. I wish they weren't, because I shouldn't be asked to. The fact that they do it nevertheless is a regrettable sign of the changing zeitgeist turning its back on political liberalism.
Opposing privacy invasions by public authorities doesn't mean that I consider myself important enough to be observed by the government, and even less that I have something to hide – this for the same reasoning for which in Western legal systems exercising one's right to remain silent cannot be interpreted as evidence to support the claim that the defendant is guilty. Such a constitutional right has a purpose, and no one should be asked to justify why he or she is asserting it. But when advocating for data protection this is what I am asked to do. All I want to do is to assert my personal and fundamental freedoms without needing to defend such assertion. Nothing more, nothing less. Indeed, by opposing privacy invasion I simply invoke my constitutional right to privacy, and hence my "right to be let alone", to determine what data of mine are to be public and which are not. As with other rights, I don't need to exercise my right to privacy consistently. I will still benefit from my constitutionally granted freedom of speech, even if my speeches keep contradicting themselves or if I do not always want to exercise this freedom of mine. In the same way, it is up to my own scrutiny on a case-by-case basis to decide if and how to exercise my right to privacy, while I have no obligation to justify why I want to exercise it. Therefore, I might be willing to share my photos on facebook, but it doesn't imply I have to agree to a foreign government screening my banking data or medical records. I might agree to the police entering my apartment without a warrant, but I might refuse them access next time they present themselves unwarranted (of course, there is always the exception to the inviolability of the home for overriding threats to public safety, but they usually require an imminent, concrete and urgent threat situation whose existence can be questioned in a courtroom afterwards).
Moreover, the burden of proof does not fall on me. My right to privacy being a fundamental right is presumed to be the rule, to be applicable and existing. Of course, just as the right to property, privacy is not an absolute right. Yet, it is not my place to prove anything: It is not my duty to prove that I did not rob the bank. It is the prosecutor's duty to prove that I did. It is not my duty to give the judge a reasonable explanation of why I do not want my neighbor to cross my property. Once I proved my right to property, my neighbor would need to invoke an existing exception or limitation to it, e.g. a contract with which I granted him/her access rights, or one of the servitudes existing in civil law systems. If the claimant can't prove such a right, too bad for him/her: my right prevails. The same reasoning should apply to my right to privacy.
Therefore, instead of asking me to justify my opposition to privacy invasions, people should request the government to provide some justifications proving that it has a legally legitimate claim to disregard my privacy. The obligation lies with the government, not with me, and up to now governments haven't credibly presented such a justification. Of course, since issues involving national security and intelligence are the reasons invoked to justify the overriding of data protections, it is difficult for governments to bring forward the necessary evidence given the existence of state secrets and the need to keep certain information confidential for public safety reasons. Still, this is first and foremost the governments' problem. Even if the judge believes my neighbor that I granted him/her access rights to my property, without sufficient evidence the judge cannot (at least in civil law countries) by all goodwill rule in my neighbors' favor.
Of course, in the case of data protection and state secrets more is at stake: governments want to protect their citizens. It can be a matter of life and death. Maybe governments should therefore be given the benefit of the doubt that they wouldn't abuse the state secret exception (even though no government gives me the benefit of the doubt for not being a terrorist!). In the end this is what most of us are doing anyway. Who really believes in the possibility of Western governments trying to assume totalitarian powers in the post-World War II era? What interest would they even have to put their citizens under constant surveillance beyond what is strictly necessary for the protection of their citizens? Unfortunately Western governments do not have so clean records after all, as state secrets have already been illegitimately invoked to try covering up shameful misbehaviors on part of the governments themselves. Therefore, the verdict for me is clear: unless more substantial evidence is brought forward on the need to limit citizens' right to privacy, we can't but to rule in favor of data protection. It would just be too simple to let governments off the hook on the mere basis of general pronouncements of national security. Given the overall climate in the age of the global war on terror, it truly would be an act of faith if we gave governments the benefit of the doubt, exonerating them from the burden of proof.
No comments:
Post a Comment