Balancing security and liberty

Terrorists have been using secure technology facilities to communicate and prepare attacks on all of us, anywhere, anytime and regardless of who we are.

Governments, therefore, have a stark choice between respecting individual privacy and demanding that all our means of communication be open to monitoring so that illicit communications are detected in good time to abort their intent.

It is very difficult to easily determine which is the right choice.

Citizens’ right to privacy in any democracy is generally protected by constitution. But such right can be easily abused by individuals who opt to utilise it in sinister and dangerous ways: what the terrorists do.

The only way to locate such dangerous elements and to thwart the threats they pose is to open all communications, the good and the suspicious, for surveillance.

That is where human rights and citizens’ privacy protection agencies intervene against such measures. 

They, as well as others, find it hard to sacrifice their right to secure and private communication, and indeed other personal affairs, for crimes, or potential crimes, planned or perpetrated by others.

That sounds legitimate.

I often find myself before this specific question. If I have to choose between safety and privacy what will my answer be? 

Most likely it will be the former. For what is the value of privacy when safety is at certain risk?

But opening all one’s private data and communication, family affairs, sensitive secrets, financial issues, health and others to unlimited and unknown inspectors can involve serious risks too, risks that can also involve safety.

It is a very complex and puzzling question.

Deeper examination of the matter, however, requires other drastic considerations, leading to a different conclusion: individual privacy should not inadvertently be compromised for any reason, even if for the sake of security and public safety.

Not because security is of secondary importance, but because depriving the potential terrorists of secure means of communication may not cripple their ability to act.

Terrorist organisations’ inventive capacity to turn around countermeasures has been witnessed since the lethal tactic of terrorism had been devised.

Formerly, skyjacking of passenger flights was easy because passengers could carry weapons on board regular flights or bring in grenades or other explosive devices with them.

Banning such weapons did not make the aviation industry fully safe anyway. The perpetrators of the most lethal hijacking of four passenger planes that happened almost simultaneously on September 11, 2001, resulting in massive loss of life and destruction, used no firearms or explosives. They only used box cutters.

As a result, passengers were not allowed to carry any sharp tools, such as pocket knives, scissors or any other similar items on board flights.

And for an extended period, plastic utensils were replacing metal knives and forks on most flights.

Then, there was a ban on liquids on board all flights following an alleged British discovery, eight years ago, of a plot where several liquid components could be brought on board by individual members of a terrorist group, boarding as passengers, to use them after takeoff for making a bomb in the plane’s toilet. 

Although that was proven fictitious, the ban remains in force until today.

Recently, some countries started banning computers on board, out of fear that bombs can be planted in them.

The few examples I just listed indicate that for every anti-terrorist protective measure there has been a countermeasure.

Using secure electronic devices and modern communication technology for their plots and activities, the terrorists must be at ease with their operations. 

Depriving them of such facility may seriously hamper their work, their financing, recruitment and coordination. But it will not cripple them entirely.

They could, in desperation, revert to traditional ways or commit their crimes separately: what lone-wolves do.

No amount of communication monitoring is likely to prevent the danger posed by vicious elements in our societies.

But that should not suggest that terrorists or evil elements should have free and open access to all media outlets and communication facilities.

A reasonable balance between security requirements and individual liberties can be guaranteed by establishing appropriate and known rules to regulate the monitoring process and to safeguard against any abuse of private information belonging to ordinary citizens once such information is accidentally exposed to unknown monitors.

I am often haunted by the fear that losing my smart phone would expose a lot of private data I need to keep protected. The same applies to my other electronic devices. But that is only if the phone ends up in the wrong hands.

Otherwise, I assume everything in my electronic store is known to some entity. If that entity is objective, credible, responsible and honest, then I have no problem.

Only when opportunism intervenes, exposure becomes a serious concern.

There may come a time, anyway, when protecting privacy may become practically impossible with the fast-advancing technology and the human ingenuity in handling it.