Trading Privacy for Convenience

Published

How the NSA is Doing what Google has Done for Years

In the wake of the Edward Snowden revelations, it’s harder than ever to ignore the fact that our personal information is a valuable commodity to internet giants. People are happy to condemn the National Security Agency’s intrusive actions under PRISM, but most fail to acknowledge that our government is simply participating in the mass collection of personal data that Google has been working on for years. Google logs all of our searches, can see the videos we watch on YouTube and photographs of our homes on Street View — not to mention Google Smartphones, which know our whereabouts at all times.  The NSA has, in a nutshell, accessed the information consolidated by U.S. tech companies and tapped into our phones.

These entities differ not in their actions, but in their motives. The NSA’s mission is to collect and analyze foreign intelligence. Google states that they use our information to “provide, maintain, protect and improve [our services], to develop new ones and to protect Google and our users.” Primarily, our information is compiled into a consumer profile and sold to advertisers.

While Google has not been immune from the mass-scrutiny currently experienced by the NSA, they’ve regularly intruded on our privacy since their conception, facing few consequences for their actions (save the occasional legal settlement). The NSA file’s first story emerged in June of this year and newly leaked information continues to dominate our headlines.  But why do we consider the NSA’s actions more reprehensible than Google’s?

The NSA has been collecting the phone records of millions of Americans, storing ‘metadata’ that reveals who individuals have called, when they have called them and the length of their conversations. Under PRISM, the NSA and GCHQ have been sending millions of records daily from internal Google and Yahoo cloud networks to their headquarters in Fort Meade, MD. These files, among other things, include the content of users’ e-mails.

Google’s privacy statement admits to collecting and storing a slew of its users’ information, from their location to their personal information, even logging who you call and how long you stay on the phone. However, Google is not always so transparent about its surveillance. Following the 2007 launch of Street View, it was discovered that Google had been illegally obtaining Wi-Fi data from receivers that were concealed in Street View vehicles. While the company originally denied these claims, an investigation was launched and Google ultimately conceded to gathering MAC addresses (the device ID for Wi-Fi hotspots) and network SSIDs (user-assigned network ID names) from private networks, as well as intercepting and storing Wi-Fi transmission data, including users’ email passwords and content. Though the company has now ended its illegal collection of Wi-Fi data, Google’s long history of privacy infringements rival, if not supersede, the actions of our government.

Are we more appalled by the PRISM program because of its secrecy? The government had repeatedly denied logging our information and, though Google admits to some of its tracking, their denial of illegal activities using Street View illustrates that they are equally as guilty of concealing the truth. While transparency is necessary for the internet to function at its fullest potential, it does not compensate for our loss of privacy. While transparency may better enable public debate, until we have the means of regaining our control over the way our identities are handled on the internet, the pursuit of ‘transparency’ only distracts us from the real issue; our complete inability to affect or restrict the actions of our government and internet giants.

Both the NSA and Google are infringing on our privacy, regardless of their motivations for doing so.  The NSA’s actions are more condemnable simply because the government does not offer us any compensation for our loss of privacy, other than the guise of homeland security. While one would assume ‘safety’ is a viable offer, it is not tangible and does not affect our daily lives. Google, however, has presented us with a sort of Faustian deal; we have (somewhat) willingly exchanged our privacy for access to instant information and services. What is perhaps even more frightening is that we unconsciously accept that our identities and personal information can be used as virtual currency. This is why, despite our relative awareness of Google’s ability to track our every movement, we continue to use their services. It seems that in today’s society, the relevant question is no longer ‘who is violating our privacy?’ but ‘what will they give me in return?’

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.